Comments on: F-35 Is A “White Elephant”?

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:30:01 +0000

Yes, the F-35 is an intimidating piece of machine. Yes, we do need to look into the future for our nation’s security and the issues we may face. However, and not to say anything bad or disagree with the F-35 program, what is wrong with what we have now? An F-22 can take out an entire fleet of MIGs, the F-15 has never been shot down, the F-16 is one of the most efficient and maneuverable planes next to the F-22, and the F-18s are still kicking butt out there over seas. So yeah, the F-35 is badass, and good job America on getting this done, but why do we decommission and almost ignore these planes that will go down in history when they’re doing just fine? Of course, I’m an aspiring fighter pilot, so more planes = more pilots! I just don’t understand why we set these birds aside while we build more. The F-15 is due to decommission in 2025, but why? The F-22 is more than any enemy can handle, so why build beyond that? Once again, I support the F-35 program and what it will do, just some food for thought, why do we keep advancing while we push the legends aside? They’re still dominating the sky just fine.

-Jacob

“It is possible to fly without motors, but not without knowledge and skill.”

— Wilbur Wright

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:19:04 +0000

I believe that the US services that deploy air assets should take an all of the above approach. That means equiping our fighter units with a mix of advanced stealth generation (F-22 & F-35) and legacy (A-10, F-15, F-16 & F-18) fighters. I don’t particularly agree with the Air Force’s obssecion with deploying an all stealth fighter force. As cool as the F-22 and F-35 are, they just aren’t necessary in every theatre of opperations that US fighter assets are required.

Sure, you have to have your prize stallion like the P-51 was during WWII. But, you also have to maintain a stable full of work horses like the P-40, P-38, and P-47 that can attend to the less glorious missions. (Oh, and for you Navy and USMC guys, the Wildcat, Hellcat & Corsair performed excellent service in their respective roles too)

For instance, its hard to believe that the F-35 will be able to outclass the A-10 in the anti-armour role. The F-16 is still one of the best bang for your buck multi-role fighter aircraft in service. The F-15 and F-18 are both very effective strike fighters as well.

The F-35 could very well become a white elephant as far as battlefield performance is concerned. Let’s face it, the F-22 is the most bad ass air-to-air fighter ever built. What do you need a bunch of F-35’s for after the F-22’s have taken care of business. But, the diplomatic consideration of the program, to get an exportable stealth fighter available for our allies, is important to maintaining our position as a leading international supplier of advanced military hardware.

Unfortunately the last multi-service fighter development program was the F-111, and we all know how that turned out. Not to knock on the F-111’s eventual role as an interdiction STRIKE aircraft that performed brilliantly in Desert Storm, but it surely did not live up to the billing of the all-in-one super jet that the defense department invisioned.

It is my sincere hope that once the F-35 enters service the US military will reconsider purchasing new versions of legacy fighter airframes with advanced avionics & deployable weapons systems and get the F-22 production line going again. After all, for those of us wishing to become fighter pilots, more fighters in the air means more pilots : )

By: Don Aldak

Don Aldak — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:02:45 +0000

Ed, I have a problem with your first 3 paragraphs. You say that the pentagon probably knew the cost overruns were going to happen. That’s no excuse. They’re still cost overruns. It’s still costing a LOT more money than before. The public (who after all is funding this) deserves to know, and this does deserve to be put into a negative light. When a program almost doubles in price, that’s starting to look “wasteful”. The F-35 IS a necessary part of the US’s and other countries’ future air forces, navies, etc.. but that doesn’t mean Lockheed Martin can just keep delaying and charging more. It’s the media’s job to inform the public, and help keep the practice of delays and overruns to a minimum.

By: Don Aldak

Don Aldak — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:00:36 +0000

I agree that the F-35 is an investment in security that we should make, but what does nuclear capability really have to do with it? Tell me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure we’re not going to be using F-35s to shoot nuclear missiles down. Deep strike capabilities are a plus, but if nukes are the problem, we should be spending more money on missile defense systems, and more time on dissuading these countries from pursuing nuclear ambitions.That said, the F-35 is necessary, if only to replace the aging f-18s, f-15s, and others.

By: Dave Eberhardt

Dave Eberhardt — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:58:48 +0000

2,443 of them? Wow… that’s alot of F-35s! Anyways, it’s quite a strike fighter. I read up on it here: http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_technology.htm

We are living in a world where more nations are seeking to develop nuclear weopon capabilities: Pakistan, North Korea, Syria (ooops, cross that one off), Iran, etc…. we will need the capabilities to strike deep into well defended airspaces.

It’s an INVESTMENT in SECURITY we need to make.

By: Don Aldak

Don Aldak — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:03:41 +0000

I don’t know about that Brandon, we’re only going to have 180 something f-22s. The f-22s are great, but if it came down to it, 180 of any fighter, even f-22s, might have trouble against a much larger force of lesser fighters. Although if we delayed F35 and made more F-22s…

By: Brandon

Brandon — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:30:28 +0000

I think that if it really came down to it, the F-22 would keep us safe until we could come up with something better. Even if that means postponing the F-35 project because of cost deficits. I don’t think we give the F-22 enough credit, in my mind, it is the greatest things since turning the airplane into a combat machine.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:22:26 +0000

I think you all have a good point. The F-35 is necessary not only to retain air superiority, but to even stay in the race! This country would be crazy not to invest in this program, especially since most of the world seems to hold a grudge against us. However, it is also necessary to stay within budget as much as possible. We all know that meeting a budget can be difficult, especially when it’s a huge number like this and it involves the government, but it has to be done. As much as the media can portray the wrong (and sometimes inaccurate) message, it is a good thing that they are bringing this to light because people need to be aware of how muich this is costing and it could potentially push these companies to bring it in as close to budget as possible. In the end, I do believe we need to make this project work, even if it does come in over budget. It’s better to spend more money for more security rather than less money for less security.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:56:55 +0000

IK think that if we learned anything in Vietnam, it should have been the importance of atying ahead of our enemies in both technology and trainning. In the rearly air battles, we lost a lot of men and planes to a lack of both.

My concerns with the F-35 program is one of deployment rather than cost, although i think cost is a factor. I think that the Marines should purchase both the B and C models. The B’s to replace the aging Harriers, and the C’s to replace the F-18’s and A-6’s. I think that the B models used as designed aboard a carrier will drastically slow down a proven launch and recovery system that has served us well for generations. This could also affect recruiting. There something appealing about going from 0 to 160 miles an hour in 2 seconds and visa versa on landing. Just a thought.

By: Don Aldak

Don Aldak — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:31:39 +0000

I agree with ed – to a certain extent. The F-35 is absolutely necessary for the future of ours and many other air forces. However, the price has risen by so much, that it’s beginning to turn grey, if not white. The way our system works has become very innefficient and costly, and should be changed. The media, while not being perfect by a long shot, is doing it’s job by critisizing this overpriced program (not saying it’s not worth it, just saying the price has kept going up), and keeping the public informed is a very good thing. If the media and the public don’t put pressure on these companies and organizations, the prices would just keep getting worse and worse, and we’d be worse off. Again, the media isn’t necessarily saying that we don’t need the F-35, it’s simply letting the public know what’s happening(and trying to make a buck, but who isnt?).